How to Brief a Case

How to Brief a Case B. Fairbanks POLS 4131: Civil Liberties and Rights 5/8/2017

Major Points for Today’s Class • Discuss the importance of understanding Supreme Court decisions and their role in the legal system • Learn how to “brief” a case by focusing on pulling key information from the opinion • Define Judicial Review, and discuss its ties to Marbury v. Madison • Define Standing, Justiciability, and Jurisdiction, and understand how they limit the power of the Court

Why do we care what SCOTUS has to say? • “…Neither the purse nor the sword...” (Federalist 78 – Alexander Hamilton) • “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it” (Pres. Andrew Jackson – after the Worcester v. Georgia decision)

Importance of SCOTUS Decisions • Common law – one of two major legal systems of the Western world, in which law is based on custom, supplemented by court decisions • Precedent – a previously decided case that serves as a guide for deciding a current case; “judge made law” • Stare Decisis – “let the judgment stand” –the doctrine that once a legal issue has been settled it should be followed as precedent in future cases presenting the same question • Civil Law – the second of two major legal systems of the Western world, in which law is entirely based on codified statutes • Constitutional Interpretation • Difficulty in amendment process • Institutional Legitimacy

Understanding SCOTUS Decisions • The excerpts of cases you will read are rather short, but the material is quite dense and difficult to read at times • They require careful reading, generally you should read each case at least two times • The first gives you a feel for the case • The second you should take notes as you read in the form of a “case brief”

What is a “Case Brief”? • Law students, practicing attorneys, judges, and legal scholars constantly need to make reference to prior cases • Reading the same case over and over each time its needed would take too much time • Memorizing all the important details of thousands of cases is impossible • Briefs are short summaries of the key points in a given case • Learning this skill now will not only help you in this course but save you hours of time and help you be more successful in the future

Essential Parts of a Brief • While there are a variety of way to do case briefs, most contain six (6) vital components: • Header Information (name, cite, date) • Facts • Issue • Ruling or Holding • Rationale or Reasoning • Other opinions (if applicable) • In addition, it is also useful to include a section that puts the case into perspective

Header Information • This is the simplest part of the brief, but of great importance when you need to reference you notes later • There are three (3) vital pieces of information used to identify a case • Case name - the “name" of a case is defined by the parties with the petitioner listed first and the responded second. Persons are listed by last name only and entities are listed by their full name • Citation - the citation is the set of numbers and letters following the case name that defines its location in the U.S. (or some other) reporter • Date - the date is important as you put cases together to see the evolution of the law over time

Example: Marbury v. Madison • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) • Note: the case name should be italicized when typing and underlined when handwritten, the “v" should be lowercase, and party names should be capitalized • The name and cite should be separate by a comma • The date should be in parentheses

Facts • As you should have learned in Judicial Process (if you have taken it) appellate courts are courts of law, not of fact • However, facts are still important as they frame the context in which the case is decided • Therefore, in your brief you should include all legally significant facts • That is, those facts that the court considers in its legal analysis and/or reasoning

Example: Marbury v. Madison • Before leaving office, President Adams appointed several “midnight judges" including William Marbury as justice of the peace for Washington, D.C. • Adams' Secretary of State (John Marshall) failed to deliver the commission • The new president (Thomas Jefferson) ordered his Secretary of State (James Madison) not to deliver Marbury's commission • Marbury brought suit before the Supreme Court to ask for a writ of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to force Madison to deliver the commission

Issue • Apart from the Header information, this should be the easiest part of your brief • If done correctly it will rarely be more than a single sentence (or if there are multiple issues, no more than one sentence each) • This will be stated in the form of a `yes' or `no' question that states the key question the court is answering • This is the area where law and facts come together, the Court will be answering a legal question in the context of the relevant facts

Example: Marbury v. Madison • Does Marbury possess a legal right to the commission? • Is there an appropriate legal remedy? • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to issue that remedy?

Ruling or Holding • Again a very simple (but important) part of your brief • In essence, this is simply the answer to the question (or questions) posed in the Issue section • While it can be answer with a simple `yes' or `no,' it is helpful to state the ruling as a single declarative sentence • Do not go beyond the legally relevant facts in this section, this is only what the Court ruled in relation to the case before it

Example: Marbury v. Madison • Marbury does possess a legal right to the commission • A writ of mandamus is an appropriate legal remedy • The Supreme Court does not have the authority to issue such a writ.

Rationale or Reasoning • This is probably the most important and most difficult section to do correctly • Essentially, you need to state the Court's reasoning for its Ruling/Holding • Generally, there will not be a single reason for the Court's decision so it is key that you include: • All the reasons • And that you list them in their logical order • It is often helpful to number them • It is also necessary to differentiate between policy reasons and legal reasons for the decision - although both should be included • Policy reasons often contain a social justification for the ruling • Whereas legal reasons are more narrow. They generally involve a direct application of the law to the facts of the case

Putting the Case in Perspective • We will generally focus on cases in a particular area of the law each class (sometimes for multiple classes) • At the end of your briefs you should put the case in perspective with the other cases you have read in that legal area • Here is where you can go beyond the facts of the case, to look at the implications • Thinking about this in advance will help you to be prepared for class discussion and for the exams

Example: Marbury v. Madison • Issue 1: Commission followed legal and constitution guidelines, thus it is valid and Marbury has a legal right to it • Issue 2: Denial of Marbury's commission would violate the law. Government is bound to provide remedies for such violations. A writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy for such a violation. • Issue 3: Constitution is supreme law. Acts of Congress must adhere to the Constitution to be valid. Court has power to strike down law/actions contrary to the Constitution. Part of the Judiciary Act expanding Court's original jurisdiction violates Constitution. It is invalid. Court has no power to issue writ.

Other Opinions • Did any of the Justices write a separate (dissenting or concurring) opinion? • Concurrences generally agree with the outcome Ruling/Holding but not the Rationale • Dissents usually disagree with both • You should concisely note if any of these are present, the author, the type, and the content

Example: Marbury v. Madison • None present – The Court issued a unanimous opinion. This was a common tactic of the Marshall Court to further endow the Court with legitimacy

Example: Marbury v. Madison • Established the concept of judicial review • Judicial review – the authority of the court to determine the constitutionality of acts committed by the legislative and executive branches and to strike down acts judged to be in violation of the Constitution • Marbury only applied to the federal government

Jurisdiction, Justiciability, and Standing B. Fairbanks POLS 4131: Civil Liberties and Rights 5/8/2017

Major Points for Today’s Class • Define jurisdiction and its various types • Define justiciability • Discuss the limitations on judicial power and threshold issues • Define standing • Analyze and discuss the assigned cases on these topics

Jurisdiction • Jurisdiction • The authority of a court to hear and decide legal disputes and to enforce its rulings • Colloquially, it refers to the geographical area and boundaries to which such authority applies

Types of Jurisdiction • Original Jurisdiction - the legal authority of a court to try a case and to decide it, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction • Appellate Jurisdiction - the legal authority of a superior court to review and render judgment on a decision by a lower court • Discretionary Jurisdiction - the legal authority of a court to decide whether it will hear a case that is brought before it • Mandatory Jurisdiction - the legal authority of a court that states a court MUST hear a case brought before it on appeal

Limits on Judicial Power • Jurisdiction • Congress under Article III, Section II is granted the authority to grant jurisdiction • Ex Parte McCardle(1869) • Jurisdiction can be withdrawn from the Court at any point in time, and its limits are not absolute • In this case, appellate jurisdiction was withdrawn from the Supreme Court • US v. Klein (1872) • Congress cannot remove jurisdiction as a “means to an end”

Justiciability • Justiciability • The ability of a case to be heard and decide by a court • Type of Issues • Advisory Opinions • Mootness • Ripeness • Collusion • Political Question • Standing

Justiciability Issues • Advisory Opinions • Must be actual case or controversy • Does not actually adjudicate the issue, but rather provides advice about the potential constitutional outcome • Often take place in civil law systems • Mootness • judicial action can no longer provide the request relief due to changes in circumstances since the filing of the case • Example: DeFunis v. Odegaard(1974)

Justiciability Issues • Collusion • Litigants want the same outcome. No “case or controversy" • Example: Carter v. Carter Coal Company (1936) • Ripeness • Threat of injury or adverse government action must be “real“ the sense that it must be immediate and highly likely to occur • Example: United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) • Political Question • A condition in which an issue would be more appropriately determined by the legislative or executive branch rather than the judiciary • Ex. Baker v. Carr(1962)

Standing • Standing • Party bringing suit must have suffered (or be immediately about to suffer) a direct and significant injury • Must involve a legal right • Flast v. Cohen (1968) created a two part test to check for standing • Part 1: Nexus must exist between the status of the litigant and the type of law that is being questioned • Part 2: Nexus must exist between the law and the precise constitutional infringement

How to Brief a Case